Use of Animals in Scientific Experiments

The Use of Animals in Scientific Experiments

One of the most contentious issues
in contemporary society is the use of animals in scientific medical
experiments. Some people believe that conducting scientific experiments on
animals is okay because it has more benefits for humans. Other people, however,
hold a that using animals in scientific experiments is
morally wrong because of the pain it inflicts on the animals (Eggel &
Grimm, 2018). This paper holds that the benefits of using animals in scientific
experiments outweigh the harm caused; hence animals should continue to be used
in scientific experiments until there is a viable alternative.

Animals provide strategic importance
for use in scientific experiments because they share a high percentage of DNA
material with humans. Mice are most preferred in scientific experiments because
their DNA material matches about 98% of human beings. Also, animals such as
mice may suffer from medical conditions like humans, ,
diabetes, and cancer (Stanford Medicine, n.d.). Therefore, the development of
drugs and vaccines that work successfully on that the
drugs or vaccines can also work on humans. Before beginning human drug or
vaccine trials, many animals are used to ensure that the drugs or vaccines are
safe for human use. Therefore, the use of animals in scientific research has
contributed to for all humans. Almost all drugs and
vaccines used by humans today were tested on animals at one point during their
development (Stanford Medicine, n.d.). Therefore, through the use of animals in
scientific experiments, human beings have been able to find a cure for diseases
that would have otherwise ended human existence on earth.

Opponents of the use of animals in
scientific experiments hold that testing on animals should stop. The opponents
provide many reasons why the use of animals is not appropriate in scientific
experiments. For instance, they believe that the process is cruel and inflicts a
lot of pain on the animals. Also, the opponents of the idea indicate that
millions of animals lose lives in scientific experiments, which is morally
unacceptable. Scientific experiments inflict pain on animals, yet those animals
can feel pain as humans do. Unfortunately, animals cannot complain about their
pain during scientific experiments. Scientific research has proved that animals
can feel pain (Herzog, 2010). The experiments, therefore, subject the animals
to a lot of unnecessary pain that human beings cannot stand. Also, subjecting
animals to scientific research that causes them to die denies them an
opportunity to live. All organisms have the right to live, and animals used in
experiments should not be exempt.

A rebuttal to the counterargument is
that most of the opponents of using animals in scientific experiments are alive
today because of drugs and vaccines created from animal tests. Human beings
receive vaccinations from different dangerous diseases such as measles,
tuberculosis, typhoid, and Covid-19 in a lifetime. Were it not for the use of
animals in experimentation, those vaccines would not have materialized (Herzog,
2010). Lack of vaccines means that people would succumb to those deadly
diseases significantly. Also, some people who argue against the use of animals
in research experiments eat animal meat. It is ironic to advocate not to use
animals in investigations only to eat them or use vaccines created from their
use in scientific experiments for protection against diseases.

In conclusion, there is contention
regarding the use of animals in scientific experiments. This paper argues that
animals should continue being used in scientific experiments until there is a
viable alternative. The position, however, is opposed by the idea that animals
also feel pain, experimentation on animals is cruel, and animals deserve to
live. The opposition position’s rebuttal is that most people are alive today
because of the benefits of using animals in experiments. Therefore, animals
should continue being used in experiments while research explores alternative
means for testing scientific drugs and vaccines.